Science is bad at explaining, but good at describing. There is a difference. When explaining something you focus on the question why. Why is this happening? Why do we exist? Why shouldn't you covet your neighbours wife? When describing something you focus on the questios how and what. How do bacteria react when introduced to a hostile enviroment? What happens when energy propelled from the Sun enters the earths athmosphere?
My favorite example for explaining the difference is gravity. Science has developed good models for describing to the smallest detail how two entities with mass interact with each other. Using mathematical models you can predict with an insane accuracy what will happen. However what it doesn't explain is why things with mass effect each other at all. Why is the universe organized in this way and not some other way? Why are there even things with mass? You can't present the mathematical formulas to answer these questions.
To be fully satisfied with an scientific explanation of how the world functions you would have to ignore these kinds of questions. Cause they are not something that can be explained by trial and error. And generally scientists avoid them as the plague and sometimes say that in the future science will be so developed that it can explain why. Many people have no problem with this, but I think one of the reasons a group of people embrace religion or other "mystical" explanations is because they offer something that science lacks: meaning. It gives answers with meaning. I think that fills a void in what many people need from the world. Gives a sense of purpose to why they are here that science never could give them.
That being said I see no reason to doubt evolution, but then again I am one of those people who has no problem with sciences inadequacies
